The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the conviction of Master Sergeant Daniel P. Gossett for child endangerment and domestic violence. This ruling, issued on October 28, 2026, confirms the military court's findings that Gossett engaged in harmful behavior toward his six-month-old daughter. The case has significant implications for military justice and the protection of children within military families.

Gossett was convicted by a general court-martial on charges of child endangerment and domestic violence. The court sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge, 15 months of confinement, a reduction in rank to E-1, and a reprimand. The ruling emphasizes the military's commitment to addressing domestic violence and child abuse within its ranks.

Background

The case began when Gossett was accused of roughly handling and strangling his infant daughter, resulting in visible harm. The incident occurred on September 8, 2023, during a stressful morning for the family. Gossett, in his interview with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI), expressed confusion about his actions, suggesting that stress from arguments with his wife may have contributed to his behavior.

The trial revealed that Gossett's actions were captured on a baby monitor, showing him applying pressure to the child's throat and abdomen. The military judge found sufficient evidence to convict him under Article 119b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for child endangerment and Article 128b for domestic violence. The case was then appealed to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Ruling

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence against Gossett. The opinion, delivered by Judge Kubler, noted, "The findings as entered are correct in law," indicating that the court found no errors that materially prejudiced Gossett's rights. The ruling also addressed several claims raised by Gossett, including ineffective assistance of counsel and issues related to the completeness of the trial record.

Specifically, the court dismissed Gossett's claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that the defense's decision not to pursue a second mental competency examination was a reasonable strategic choice. The court noted, "The choice not to request a second mental competency examination based upon expert advice and the trial defense counsel’s risk evaluation is... a reasonable defense strategy—not ineffective assistance of counsel."

Impact

This ruling reinforces the military's stance on child endangerment and domestic violence, highlighting the seriousness with which such offenses are treated within the armed forces. The court's decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar charges, ensuring that military personnel are held accountable for actions that endanger vulnerable family members.

The case also underscores the importance of mental health evaluations in military justice. The court's affirmation of the trial defense's strategic decisions suggests that defense counsel can make choices based on expert advice without being deemed ineffective. This aspect of the ruling may influence how defense strategies are approached in future military trials.

What's Next

Gossett's conviction can potentially be appealed to a higher military court, but details regarding any such plans were not available in the court filing. As of now, there are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling.